Graduate Advising in Experimental Research Groups

Survey and laboratory experiments are increasingly common in political science. Investment in experimental data collection comes with costs and benefits, particularly for graduate students and advisers. This article describes a set of institutionalized procedures we have adopted with the goal of capitalizing on the advantages that come with experimental research. This includes requiring planning documents, holding research-group meetings, and centralizing data collection. These procedures, which are a form of internal pre-registration and early peer review, were designed to enhance the quality of graduate advising and graduate student research. We conclude by discussing the limitations of our approach, ultimately highlighting the need for more disciplinary conversation about how to best structure research groups to produce quality research and advising.

“As the higher education community seeks to encourage students’ civic engagement on campus and their lifelong political participation, thisHow can colleges improve voting and political learning on their campuses? “Election Imperatives”, a new report by @TuftsIDHE, offers ten recommendations that can guide institutions’ efforts to use the #2018Midterms to educate and engage students. idhe.tufts.edu/electionimperatives important report provides a research-based road map to move us forward,” said Anthony P. Monaco, president of Tufts. “I am committed to implementing these recommendations at Tufts University.”

“Election Imperatives: Ten Recommendations to Increase College Student Voting and Improve Political Learning and Engagement in Democracy” is informed by IDHE’s widely recognized research, including the National Study of Learning, Voting and Engagement (NSLVE), which provides student registration and turnout rates of more 10 million students in more than 1,100 participating institutions.

The report calls on students, faculty, administrators, and senior leadership to support and promote democratic participation and civic engagement in the United States and on the nation’s college campuses. It details how colleges and universities can increase voting and connect elections with student learning; suggests responsibilities for various stakeholders; provides specific examples of activities and initiatives; and offers dozens of resources to aid implementation. The report also encourages university leaders to adapt these recommendations to the circumstances and climates on their own campuses.

Directed to higher education leaders and faculty, the recommendations include:

Realign election activities and institutional priorities to be consistent with the long-term goals of political learning, discourse and inclusive participation in democracy.

Talk politics across campus — inside and outside of the classroom — and discuss policy issues, social conflicts and campus controversies with students to improve dialogue and conflict resolution skills and to advance inclusion and free expression.

Empower students to create a buzz around the election, cultivating an environment in which registration and voting is expected and exciting.

“This report provides a step-by-step guide for colleges and universities to meet their responsibility to educate students for democracy,” says Nancy Thomas, director of IDHE. “We believe that institutions that implement these recommendations will not just increase voting rates in the upcoming election but will permanently improve campus discourse, advance equity, enhance their students’ agency, and strengthen civic life at their institutions and in the country.”

Election Imperatives is endorsed by and disseminated in conjunction with 11 important higher education organizations, including the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), Campus Compact, and NASPA – Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. These associations will encourage their member campuses to adopt the recommendations in the report.

“American higher education was founded on a commitment to educating for democracy,” said Lynn Pasquerella, president of AAC&U. “At a time when partisan divides are greater than they have been in fifty years, it is more critical than ever to ensure every voice is heard. AAC&U is proud to partner with the Institute for Democracy & Higher Education in supporting Election Imperatives.

The IDHE, part of Tufts University’s Tisch College, serves as a leading venue for research, resources and advocacy on college student political learning and engagement in democratic practice. Through research, resource development and convening, they strive to inform and shift college and university priorities, practices and culture to strengthen democracy and advance social and political equity.

In the coming months, the IDHE will continue to share data and resources to inform election-related learning on college campuses for the 2018 elections and to support the broader goal of long-term political learning and participation in higher education.

IDHE leaders and researchers are available for interviews. Media outlets should contact: Jen McAndrew, Communications Director at jennifer.mcandrew@tufts.edu or 617-627-2029 (office), 781-605-9917 (mobile)

Editors/producers please note: NSLVE is pronounced “N-Solve.”

The only university-wide college of its kind, the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life offers transformational student learning and service opportunities, conducts groundbreaking research on young people’s civic and political participation, and forges innovative community partnerships. Its work is guided by two core beliefs: that communities, nations and the world are stronger, more prosperous, and more just when citizens actively participate in civic and democratic life; and that higher education has a responsibility to develop the next generation of active citizens. Learn more at http://tischcollege.tufts.edu and on Twitter at @TischCollege.

Tufts University (http://www.tufts.edu/), located on three Massachusetts campuses in Boston, Medford/Somerville and Grafton, and in Talloires, France, is recognized as one of the premier research universities in the United States. Tufts enjoys a global reputation for academic excellence and for the preparation of students as leaders in a wide range of professions. A growing number of innovative teaching and research initiatives span all Tufts campuses, and collaboration among the faculty and students in the undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs across the university’s schools is widely encouraged.

Whose Research Is It? Political Scientists Discuss Whether, How, and Why We Should Involve the Communities We Study

by Kristin Michelitch, Vanderbilt University

As scholars conducting research in the Global South, we “collect” the insights, opinions, and behaviors of those we study for scholarly publication and teaching outputs. Our audiences, however, are often limited to other scholars or students at universities in the Global North rather than the communities we study. In organizing the symposium “Whose Research Is It? Notable Ways Political Scientists Impact the Communities We Study,” I prompt fellow comparative politics scholars with a quote from Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s 2012 book (p10): “Whose research is it? Who owns it? Whose interests does it serve? Who will benefit from it? Who has designed its questions and framed its scope? Who will carry it out? Who will write it up? How will its results be disseminated?” Authors, whose research is rooted in diverse world regions and methodological approaches, react by discussing the extent to which we should involve or impact the communities we study, as well as the (lack of) professional incentives to do so. The contributors discuss ways in which involvement of local communities can alternatively enrich or hinder the quality of research, but they also argue for local community involvement (or not) based on professional ethical standards.

Scholars of electoral authoritarianism have long considered democratic backsliding. However, recent developments in advanced industrialized democracies suggest that these countries have also experienced backsliding. For example, in recent years Freedom House has downgraded advanced democracies including the United States, Spain, France, and Hungary, while still ranking them as “Free” overall, and downgraded others that it ranks as “Partly Free,” such as Turkey. To slow or stop such backsliding, the role of institutions (e.g., courts, opposition parties, the media) and of citizens is critical. This panel explores democratic backsliding and whether institutions and citizens impede, facilitate, or have no effect on backsliding.

Am I a Methodologist? (Asking for a Friend)

by Thomas J. Leeper, London School of Economics and Political Science

Political methodologists are a group of political scientists who provide the field as a whole with “meta research” on how to engage in the systematic study of politics, providing a critical reflection on research practices and offering new methods and new tools for use by fellow researchers. Despite the importance of the role, there are widely held stereotypes about “political methodologists” as a group, not all of which are positive or encourage early career researchers to consider participating in the subfield.

In this article, Thomas Leeper provides an autobiographical insight into the process of coming to identify as a methodologist, presents readers with a typology of methodologists that showcases the breadth of research and teaching roles performed by members of the subfield, and discusses the process and challenges of self-identification as a barrier to entry for new, potential methodologists.

Leeper suggests that political scientists attracted to the teaching and research functions performed by methodologists should seriously consider participating in the subfield even if they don’t yet “feel” like a methodologist. He goes on to encourage potential methodologists to not let the feeling that they are different from the current, fairly homogeneous group of current methodologists to stand in the way of their career in the subfield.

Everyday Political Engagement in Comparative Politics

by Thomas Pepinsky, Cornell University

It is common for critics of social science to consider scholarship and academic research to be too divorced from “real-world politics” to be useful. Academic political science, critics allege, is too motivated by disciplinary or methodological concerns, or funding agencies’ priorities, to be relevant for the pressing political issues of the day. Such criticism paints modern political science as irrelevant at best, and exploitative at worst. However, such criticism misses the many ways that contemporary political science plays a central role in politics in countries around the world. Especially in “area-focused” comparative politics, academic political science research does focus on issues that have practical and political importance. The debates and findings of political scientists are input for national political conversations—and sometimes even for the policy process itself. The more interesting question is this: under what conditions it is appropriate for foreign academics to be as engaged as they are. Using the politics of Southeast Asia as an example, this article illustrates how academic political science has contributed to important political debates, past and present. It also asks whether or not there ought to be limits to how engaged political scientists are in the politics of the countries they study.

In the past years, populist parties have gained increasing traction across European
countries – both in established democracies and in the post-communist states of Eastern Europe –
seemingly signalling a growing discontent with democracy. Despite a long-standing interest in far-right
and far-left movements in the study of European politics, the populist wave has led to new questions
about the relationship between economic changes, nationalist mobilization, party competition and
populist success. This mini-conference focuses on the European experience in a comparative
perspective, bringing together scholars of European politics examining populism from a range of
angles.

Collectively, the panels move through: the relationship between economic security and populist
voting, the construction of political insecurity across contexts, the role of business actors (domestic
and foreign) in shaping populist, populist mobilization across different class, gender, and racial
groups, and the role of party competition itself in shaping the opportunities for success. In so doing,
each panel contributes to the theme of understanding populism in Europe, but adds a different
perspective.

Participants:
Ellen M. Immergut, European University Institute/Humboldt University Berlin (Chair)
Brian Burgoon, University of Amsterdam (Discussant)

The Use of Positive Words in Political Science Language

by Nils B. Weidmann, University of Konstanz, Sabine Otto,Uppsala University and Lukas Kawerau, University of Konstanz

Research in the natural sciences has shown that the frequency of words with positive connotations such as “novel” or “innovative” has increased dramatically over the last decades. How does the language of political science change over time? In a new article published in PS: Political Science & Politics, Nils. B. Weidmann, Sabine Otto and Lukas Kawerau provide new results to answer this question. Using abstracts from the three main political science journals, the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science and the Journal of Politics, they show that there is a similar tendency in the field for researchers to increasingly frame their research in a positive tone. This increase cannot be explained by general changes in the use of language, so it is something that seems to be a feature specific to scientific language. At the same time, the increase in the use of positive words in political science is much less pronounced as compared to the natural sciences. While their research cannot tell with certainty, one explanation for this trend could be found in changing norms in the discipline, where research framed in a positive way is more likely to be published.